Why Should Bestiality Be Against The Law?

[nnmartin]

let's revisit post 272 then:

(although IMO necrophilia is an issue because of the inability to obtain consent not just from the person, but also the family of the deceased - who would likely be unwilling to allow it, and even if they were, would they have the right to do so? no i dont think so)

You say that necrophilia should be banned due to the consent issue and concerns of the family.

This is not the main reason it is banned.

It is banned because it is a despicable , depraved act which may well in turn lead to more depravity.

Concerns of the family would not be an issue if the deceased had no family.

Also the consent issue does not arise because this concept is passed over after death.

A dead body is an inanimate, lifeless object - consent thus not a factor , this logic would apply equally to a sex doll which would not have to give consent either.

No objective direct harm to another individual can always be made for necrophilia, yet it is still banned because it is wrong.

The same with bestiality.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

You say that necrophilia should be banned due to the consent issue and concerns of the family.

This is not the main reason it is banned.

I know that is not the reason it IS banned, however I believe it is the reason it SHOULD have been banned for.

It is banned because it is a despicable , depraved act which may well in turn lead to more depravity.

That is the perception, and that perception is why it is banned. That does not mean that perception is true.

Concerns of the family would not be an issue if the perpetrator had no family.

Perpetrator? I think you mean the deceased; in which case, if they had no family, how would the 'perpetrator' be able to demonstrate that they had consent? Through video etc? Perhaps, if so, then I have no issue with that - I think it is creepy, but if that is what they wanted....

Also the consent issue does not arise because this concept is passed over after death.

And yet we have the ability to enter into contracts that can last beyond the scope of our lives, such as delegating an enduring power of attorney, guardianship and so forth. So death does not change the issue of consent, only the ways in which it can be proved to have been obtained (which by the way I believe needs to be proved as opposed to having to prove it was not obtained)

A dead body is an inanimate, lifeless object - consent thus not a factor , this logic would apply equally to a sex doll which would not have to give consent either.

Are you suggesting using a sex doll is immoral and should be illegal? Interesting.

No objective direct harm to another individual can always be made for necrophilia, yet it is still banned because it is wrong.

As I stated that was for harms that are claimed to SOCIETY, not to an individual (which can express consent on an individual basis and therefore have the capability to object based on a subjective basis - such as not wanting something to happen)

The same with bestiality.

Amazing. You have just - in your own words stated that there is no objective direct harm from bestiality.

Now that we both agree that there is no objective harm caused by bestiality, I would suggest that since there is no victim (unless either party is an unwilling participant) there is no crime.

I am glad we both agree.

 

[nnmartin]

yet another game of semantics - a very long winded one at that!

Objective, subjective, proof, slippery slope etc... who cares?

Necrophilia is banned due to depravity and so is bestiality.

The right decision.


(note edit)

 

[nnmartin]

I know that is not the reason it IS banned, however I believe it is the reason it SHOULD have been banned for.

That is the perception, and that perception is why it is banned. That does not mean that perception is true.

Good job you are not a judge then!

Perpetrator? I think you mean the deceased; in which case, if they had no family, how would the 'perpetrator' be able to demonstrate that they had consent?

Yes, I meant to say deceased.
But as I said already, the consent issue is no longer a factor here.

And yet we have the ability to enter into contracts that can last beyond the scope of our lives, such as delegating an enduring power of attorney, guardianship and so forth.

That is clearly off-topic.

Are you suggesting using a sex doll is immoral and should be illegal? Interesting.

No, just saying that a sex doll does not have to give consent either because it is an inanimate object.

Now that we both agree that there is no objective harm caused by bestiality, I would suggest that since there is no victim (unless either party is an unwilling participant) there is no crime.

Strange that you think a game in semantics can be used to justifiy an abhorrent and depraved act.

Same with the others on this thread - you are just trying to hide behind language here.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet semantics doesnt change the fact that you admitted there is no objective direct harm from bestiality; kay bye now ^_-




I think bestiality is abhorrent. Semantics doesn't change that.

I think necrophilia is abhorrent. Semantics doesn't change that.

I think paedophilia is abhorrent. Semantics doesn't change that.

I do NOT think morality should be used as the basis of making things illegal. Semantics doesn't change that.

I think the ONLY reason a sex act should be illegal is if the parties do not give their informed consent to it. Semantics doesn't change that.



You are the one hiding behind word games to avoid particular points, your morality is subjective, you have no right to enforce it on others. Keep your 'God's Law' (the real basis for ALL your arguments) to yourself.

 

[nnmartin]

From now on no semantics. (from either side of the debate)

Pointless , fruitless and tedious.

Straight to the point only - that is the way forward here.

 

[nnmartin]

Yet semantics doesnt change the fact that you admitted there is no objective direct harm from bestiality; kay bye now ^_-

If your purpose of being here is solely to run around in vague circles trying to score brownie points off the use of language then it is no doubt for the best that you are now taking leave.

I am glad to see that at least you have agreed on the fact that bestiality is abhorrent.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I posted as much much earlier in the piece, I find it offensive to an extent; particularly if any party is not giving clear and inarguable consent.

I am not trying to 'score points' I am just pointing out, that you yourself admit that there is no objective harm that was you who said that! So the reasons that you are objecting to bestiality are subjective and therefore are not an appropriate basis for law, because subjective matters differ from one person to another.

 

[nnmartin]

That is not what I said though.

I said this:

No objective direct harm to another individual can always be made for necrophilia, yet it is still banned because it is wrong.
The same with bestiality.

Infer from this what you will.

Direct or non-direct harm.
Objective harm or subjective harm.
An admittance or not an admittance.

Who cares as it changes little.

This is why we have judges and a legal system.

 

[Tiberius]

I would agree, however there is a significant number who suggest arousal does not mean consent (there is some validity in this perspective), a lesser number suggest that even when they are the dominant of the paring they are STILL not consenting (personally I find no validity in this perspective).

I would agree that arousal doesn't imply consent, and I also find no validity in the argument that consent is not there even if the animal is actively trying to participate in a sexual act.

this is why we have judges who have the power to make decisions.

In their wisdom they have declared bestiality to be depraved and wrong hence it is banned in most places.

You are just hiding behind semantics here in order to try and further your libertarian stance.

So just because a judge says something that makes it objectively true? Oh come on. There have been plenty of rulings from judges that have been overturned by other judges. You'll have to do better than "a judge said it, so it must be true!"

How about my other question then.

Isn't the banning of anything just an appeal to numbers fallacy?

It would be according to this kind of reasoning.

No.

Is theft illegal for no reason other than most people don't like it? Of course not. Theft is illegal because it produces a demonstrable harm to the victim.

Male and female human having intercourse that would lead to reproduction in its natural form. (ie: the use of contraception, infertility issues etc would count as pseudo)

Ah, so sex that would cause pregnancy but there is some factor that prevents it? Is that what you mean?

 

[nnmartin]

yes, that is what I meant.

No doubt you have some reply waiting in the wings....let's have it then...

anyway,

I have just started a new thread in the General Debates section titled 'should incest be banned?'

I hope to see Tiberius and others over there as I'm sure there are some related issues.

I will try to be open minded from the off.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2774125-post1.html

 

[Tiberius]

Given your fascination with the subject, I wonder if maybe you are the depraved and kinky one.

My argument is and always has been that if every participant in a sex act is happy to be there, then I don't have a problem with it.

 

[nnmartin]

That is quite absurd really because on this thread I am the light of reason and commonsense.

You and your fellows have been the ones promoting the legalisation of this abomination.

Anyway, come and join the other debate if you are interested and maybe we can work something out.

 

[McBell]

That is quite absurd really because on this thread I am the light of reason and commonsense.

Only in your own mind.
You have as yet to use any logic or reason to support your claims.

You and your fellows have been the ones promoting the legalisation of this abomination.

*yawn*
More blatant bold faced lies?
Why am I not the least bit surprised?

Anyway, come and join the other debate if you are interested and maybe we can work something out.

Are you actually going to debate?

I have to ask becuase so far in this thread you hav enot debated at all.

You have made a bunch of claims.
You have insisted your claims are correct.
You have presented logical fallacy after after logical fallacy in a sad sorry attempt to justify your unsubstantiated claims, but you have not debated anything in this thread.

 

[nnmartin]

I haven't noticed you contribute a great deal other than wordplay, semantics and sniping though.

Do you actually have anything to say regarding the actual topic at hand such as why you really think bestiality should be legal?

Libertarianism, freedom of choice, each to their own etc...?

 

[Tiberius]

That is quite absurd really because on this thread I am the light of reason and commonsense.

You claim that you are the voice of reason, but your arguments have so far been little more than, "Ew! It's icky, so that means it is wrong!"

You and your fellows have been the ones promoting the legalisation of this abomination.

Again with the weasel words. You call it an abomination to try to make it sound bad, but you haven't provided any objective reason to call it an abomination!

 

[McBell]

I haven't noticed you contribute a great deal other than wordplay, semantics and sniping though.

I have only given back to you what you have dished out.

Do you actually have anything to say regarding the actual topic at hand such as why you really think bestiality should be legal?

And here is a prime example of one part of your problem.
I never once said nor even implied that I think bestiality should be legal.

That claim is 100% assumption on your part.

Libertarianism, freedom of choice, each to their own etc...?

You do an awful lot of whining about something you are the most guilty of.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you actually have anything to say regarding the actual topic at hand such as why you really think bestiality should be legal?

Libertarianism, freedom of choice, each to their own etc...?

I was just done with this thread, but know it has become interesting.
I wonder if people liking to hear their own voice applies in a digital world? Rather than liking to hear their voice, they like to read there thoughts.
I was wonder who is the bigger fool: the person who apparently forgot 10 pages worth of posts, or the one who is stuck on repeat.
After 400 post, much of which can be summarized as one main argument, one main counter argument, and several rebuttals that are all loosely paraphrased from the main arguments , can't people just agree to disagree because obviously it's going nowhere. You guys are beating a goo pile of dead horse.

 

[nnmartin]

I agree - well said!

I have actually tried changing the direction of the topic several times though but keep getting pushed back into the corner of objectivity v. subjectivity.

I am happy to move forward to a new angle.

so what is it with you all that really rocks your boat with this issue?

I imagine it must be about Libertarian free will v. Big government or something like that, right?

Or is it simply a case of Law making and the precepts required for it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have actually tried changing the direction of the topic several times though but keep getting pushed back into the corner of objectivity v. subjectivity.

You really haven't. People have asked you for other positions, and you keep resorting to the same positions that are issues of subjective feelings vs. objective thinking.

I imagine it must be about Libertarian free will v. Big government or something like that, right?

Or is it simply a case of Law making and the precepts required for it?

We've already discussed it. Several times.